Shaikh Matin Javed vs State of Maharashtra

(1) The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years.

(2) The occurrence took place on 09.08.2000 at about 09:55 A.M. The petitioner-accused is alleged to have assaulted and caused injuries to PW-2-the Head Master of the School. The motive for the occurrence is that the wife of the petitioner who is said to be working as Assistant Teacher in the same school where PW-2 was the Head Master. In the year 1997, the Education Officer refused to give approval to the appointment of the wife of the petitioner and she could not be continued in the school. The School Management of the School therefore transferred the wife of the petitioner to another school at Pusad, District Yawatmal. Due to transfer of his wife, the petitioner developed animosity towards PW-2 and by being under the impression that PW-2, Head Master, was responsible for such transfer of his wife. Due to the said motive the petitioner-accused has attacked PW-2-Head Master and inflicted injuries to PW-2 with knife and caused bleeding injuries to the limbs and other parts of body to PW-2-Head Master on 09.08.2000 at about 09:55 A.M. Petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC.

(3) In the Trial, PW-2 (Head Master) who was injured was examined. Other witnesses S.K. Rasul (PW-1) and Abdul Sattar (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court acquitted the petitioner-accused by holding that the evidence of PW-2, Head Master, alone is not sufficient to convict the petitioner-accused.

(4) Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order reversed the acquittal and convicted the petitioner-accused, as aforesaid in para no.(1).

(5) We have heard Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence/materials on record.

(6) The petitioner-accused appears to have attacked PW-2, Head Master, only under the impression that PW-2 was responsible for the transfer of his wife to another school. In view of the evidence of injured witness PW-2-Head Master and the recovery effected from the petitioner-accused, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Section 307 I.P.C.

(7) The petitioner, as seen from the custody certificate, has been in custody from 04.09.2018 i.e. about one year and two months. The occurrence was in the year 2000. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from five years to two years. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is reduced from five years to two years.

(8) The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly to the extent indicated above and the special leave petition is partly allowed. As and when the petitioner completes the period of sentence of imprisonment of two years (including remission if any allowable), he is ordered to be released unless he is required in any other case.

(9) The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.